Law Update

Court Strikes Calif. Rules Limiting Religious Speech

Officials in the California education department violated the First
Amendment when they barred employees from discussing their religious
beliefs or displaying religious materials near their office cubicles, a
federal appeals court has ruled.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit
unanimously struck down the regulations limiting religious speech in
the state education agency's child-nutrition and food-distribution
division.

Monte D. Tucker, a computer analyst at the state agency, challenged
the rules, arguing that his religious beliefs commanded him to credit
God for his work. In 1988, Mr. Tucker began putting the initials for
the phrase "Servant of the Lord Jesus Christ" after his name on
materials he worked on.

His superiors instructed him not to use the initials and suspended
him for five days when he did not comply. In 1989, the child-nutrition
division posted rules that prohibited employees from engaging in
religious advocacy in the office. In addition to banning religious
discussions, the rules prohibited the display of religious artifacts or
tracts outside of workers' offices or cubicles.

Mr. Tucker challenged the rules in a federal lawsuit filed in 1989.
A federal district court upheld them in 1991. After lengthy procedural
delays, the appeals court last month reversed the district court and
ruled for Mr. Tucker.

The state agency violated the First Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution by targeting religious speech for restrictions, the court
said. "Allowing employees of the child-nutrition and food-distribution
division to discuss whatever subject they choose to at work, be it
religion or football, may incidentally benefit religion (or football),
but it would not give the appearance of a state endorsement," said the
Oct. 4 opinion by U.S. Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt.

Idaho Principal Does Not Qualify for Immunity

In another recent ruling from the 9th Circuit, a separate
three-judge panel unanimously held that an Idaho high school principal
accused of using excessive force against students in three separate
incidents is not entitled to qualified immunity from a civil
lawsuit.

The court said in P.B. v. Koch that at the time of the
incidents, during the 1990-91 school year, students had a
constitutional right to be free from bodily harm caused by school
officials.

The case involves allegations that Alfred Koch, the principal of
Preston (Idaho) High School, used excessive force against three
students. In one incident, the principal squeezed a student's neck
after he mistakenly thought the student had referred to him as Hitler.
Mr. Koch pleaded guilty to assault and battery in that 1990 incident
and was placed on probation for three months.

In the second incident, the principal allegedly punched a student in
the chest after the student made noise during a ceremony at a
basketball game. In the third, Mr. Koch allegedly slammed a student
into some lockers because the student refused to keep his hat off after
the principal asked him to remove it.

The students filed a civil rights lawsuit against Mr. Koch, who
sought to have it thrown out based on qualified immunity, which is a
protection against liability for public officials who can show their
actions were reasonable and did not violate established constitutional
rights. A federal district court denied the bid for immunity, and Mr.
Koch appealed.

"It is clear that a principal who physically assaulted his students
in the manner Koch allegedly did has violated their clearly established
constitutional rights," said the Sept. 27 opinion by U.S. Circuit Judge
Betty B. Fletcher.

Court is Dog's Best Friend

The Nevada Supreme Court may well be a dog's best friend.

The court has upheld a preliminary injunction allowing a music
teacher in the Clark County schools to bring to her classroom a dog she
was training to be a helper for people with disabilities.

The district had barred the dog, saying it could harm students who
were afraid of or allergic to dogs.

The teacher, Anne Buchanan, said it was important for dogs in
training to be exposed to public situations. She argued that a state
law guaranteed the same access to public accommodations for trainers of
helping dogs as for the disabled people who rely on the animals.
("Take Note: Does the dog stay--or
go?," Sept. 20, 1995.)

In an opinion filled with perhaps every possible dog-related pun or
clich‚, the state high court agreed that the law covers
classrooms. The court said the district's argument against allowing the
dog "barks up the wrong tree."

"We should not discriminate against 'man's best friend,'" the court
said. "Justice must be even-pawed!"

Notice: We recently upgraded our comments. (Learn more here.) If you are logged in as a subscriber or registered user and already have a Display Name on edweek.org, you can post comments. If you do not already have a Display Name, please create one here.

Ground Rules for Posting
We encourage lively debate, but please be respectful of others. Profanity and personal attacks are prohibited. By commenting, you are agreeing to abide by our user agreement.
All comments are public.